Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 617 (AP)

Ranghothan Rao v. State Of A. P.

2005-07-12

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2005
( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the accused officer (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ) in C. C. No. 23 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Special judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE appellant worked as a Village assistant of Yacharam Mandal of Ranga reddy District. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification for doing an official favour to the complainant-P. W. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 19-9-1997 preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant is briefly as follows: ( 4 ) THE complainant who was examined as P. W. 1 is a resident of Gadda Ma11aiah gudem, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy district and is an agriculturist. His father ram Reddy submitted an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yacharam mandal for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of Survey nos. 434 to 437. The ancestors of P. W. 1, his father and paternal uncles cultivated the lands covered by the above survey numbers for more than 40 years. The lands originally stood in the name of one kailasagiri of Hyderabad. The father of p. W. 1 and his paternal uncles, as protected tenants, filed an application before the revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad east for granting patta for those lands in their favour under A. P. Telangana Area (Agricultural) Tenancy Act. The RD. O. granted patta of those lands in favour of the father of P. W. 1 and the sons of his paternal uncle Narayana Reddy and issued patta certificate No. L/2562/89 dated 25-12-1989, the father of P. W. 1 and his cousin Anji reddy separately made applications in august 1990 to the M. R. O. . Yacharam for mutation of their names in the records, as per the partition deed and patta certificate. Yacharam for mutation of their names in the records, as per the partition deed and patta certificate. The M. R. O. directed P. W. I to approach the appellant who was the Village Assistant of their village. The appellant demanded rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for showing official favour of making entries in the registers by way of mutation. On 4-8-1990 p. W. I met the appellant in the M. R. O s officer, Yacharam and the appellant reiterated his earlier demand of Rs. 500/- for giving favourable report, but after some bargaining the appellant reduced the amount to Rs. 300/- and threatened that unless the said amount is paid, no action will be taken on their application for mutation. Since P. W. 1 was not willing to pay any amount towards bribe to the appellant, he approached P. W. 5, the then deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti- corruption Bureau, Hyderabad on 6-8-1990 and lodged Ex. P. 5- complaint against the appellant requesting to take necessary action. On the basis of Ex. P. 5-complaint a case covered by Crime No. II/acb-HR/90 was registered against the appellant and during the course of investigation a trap was laid on 7-8-1990 at about 1-30 p. m. In the said trap the appellant demanded Rs. 300/- from P. W. 1 and accepted the said amount from him in the office of the M. R. O. , yacharam as a reward for showing official favour in processing the application of the father of P. W. 1 for mutation of their lands situated in their village. The officials of acb caught the appellant red-handed and recovered the tainted amount from his possession. The police after completing the investigation laid the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE appellant denied the commission of the offence at the time of framing of the charge and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P. Ws. 1 to 6, marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12 and M. Os. 1 to 8. The appellant did not dispute the receipt of the amount, but stated in the 313 Cr. P. C. examination that he received the said amount of Rs. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P. Ws. 1 to 6, marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12 and M. Os. 1 to 8. The appellant did not dispute the receipt of the amount, but stated in the 313 Cr. P. C. examination that he received the said amount of Rs. 300/- from P. W. 1 which was paid by him in discharge of the amount due to his wife. The appellant also examined D. W. 1 to prove that the appellant and P. W. I are familiar to each other and there used to be exchange of visits to their respective houses. The Special Judge after considering the evidence placed by both parties found the appellant guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. ( 6 ) IN the light of the contentions of the respective parties, the point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and the sentences imposed by the lower Court are liable to be set aside or modified? point: ( 7 ) THE trap was laid on 7-8-1990. As on that date the appellant was working as a Village Assistant in the office of the mandal Revenue Officer, Yacharam. The prosecution in its effort to establish the guilt of the appellant relied on the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 6. ( 8 ) P. W. I stated that he approached the appellant along with Ex. P. 1-application as per the instructions of the M. R. O. by enclosing Ex. P. 3-patta certificate and Ex. P. 4- copy of the partition deed. The appellant remanded Rs. 500/- for taking action on ex. P1. He agreed to pay the amount after mutation of the lands in their favour. On 6-8-1990 he approached the appellant in the office of the M. R. O. and asked about the mutation of the lands. The appellant again reiterated his demand for bribe of rs. 500/- and he expressed his inability to pay the said amount. The appellant asked him to pay at least Rs. 300/ -. He felt that the work would not be done unless he pays the amount, therefore, returned back to the village. The appellant again reiterated his demand for bribe of rs. 500/- and he expressed his inability to pay the said amount. The appellant asked him to pay at least Rs. 300/ -. He felt that the work would not be done unless he pays the amount, therefore, returned back to the village. On the same day i. e. , on 6-8-1990 at about 3 p. m. he went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at MJ. Market, Hyderabad and gave Ex. P. 5- complaint written in his own handwriting. The D. S. P. after going through Ex. P. 5 asked him to bring the intended bribe amount of rs. 300/- on the next day. Accordingly, on 7-8-1990 at about 10-30 am, he approached the D. S. P. in his office along with the bribe amount of Rs. 300/ -. The D. S. P. after confirming the correctness of the contents of Ex. P. 5 in the presence of mediators collected Rs. 300/- of Rs. 100/- denomination from him. As per the instructions of the d. S. P. one constable applied powder to three notes and gave instructions as to how he has to deliver the amount to the appellant. On the same day at about 12 noon the D. S. P. took P. W. I and two other mediators and other staff members in his van to Yacharam Village and they reached the village at about 1-30 p. m. The van was stopped at the outskirts of the village and the D. S. P. sent him along with P. W. 2 mediator to approach the appellant at the m. R. O. Office. Accordingly they went to the appellant who was sitting in the m. R. O s room. On seeing him the appellant came out and asked him about the bribe amount of Rs. 300/ -. Then he gave the tainted amount of Rs. 300/- to the appellant. The appellant counted the currency notes and kept them in his shirt pocket and went into the office room of the M. R. O. After few minutes the D. S. P. and other mediators and staff rushed to the room of the M. R. O. asking him to remain outside. After 15 minutes the D. S. P. called him into the room of the M. R. O. and examined him. After 15 minutes the D. S. P. called him into the room of the M. R. O. and examined him. He elicited the information as to what had happened after they left the van to the m. R. O. Office and subsequently his statement was also recorded. In the cross-examination p. W. 1 denied a suggestion that he demanded the appellant to enter his name in the pahanies as cultivators of the lands that fell to his father s share and as the appellant refused to record his name as a cultivator by saying that his father and cousin brothers did not partition the lands, he bore grudge against the appellant, and that prior to the incident the appellant and himself were on cardial terms, that he used to visit the residential house of the appellant, that he used to take hand-loans either from the appellant or his wife, that the appellant has nothing to do with the mutation of the lands under R. O. R. Act, and that he did not meet the appellant and did not pay any amount. ( 9 ) P. W. 2. the then Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of panchayathi Raj at Hyderabad deposed that on a request from A. C. B. he was deputed to assist the A. C. B. officials in connection with the trap laid against the appellant on 7-8-1990. On the same day he reported at the office of A. C. B. , Hyderabad at about 11 a. m. , along with another mediator. The d. S. P. introduced P. W. I to them and gave ex. P. 1-complaint for verification of the contents. After P. W. 1 admitting the contents of Ex. P. 5, P. W. 1 gave Rs. 300/- of hundred rupees denomination to the D. S. P. , who in turn gave them to him and another mediator to note the numbers of those currency notes. After noting down the numbers they were given to the D. S. P. who in turn handed over them to one constable. The said constable on instructions from the d. S. P. applied phenolphthalein powder to those notes and kept those notes covered by M. O. 1 in the shirt pocket of P. W. 1. After noting down the numbers they were given to the D. S. P. who in turn handed over them to one constable. The said constable on instructions from the d. S. P. applied phenolphthalein powder to those notes and kept those notes covered by M. O. 1 in the shirt pocket of P. W. 1. Later he accompanied P. W. 1 to the M. R. O. Office, Yacharam and observed the happenings between P. W. 1 and the appellant and after acceptance of the amount by the appellant to give signal to the A. C. B. officials to conduct the raid. Accordingly they reached Yacharam at about 1-30 p. m. , in a van and after parking the van at some distance from the M. R. O. Office. P. W. 1 and himself went to the office of the M. R. O. Both of them entered the office of the M. R. O. and went towards the m. R. O s room. The appellant who was sitting in the office room of the M. R. O. on seeing P. W. I came out. When P. W. 1 asked the appellant about his application the appellant asked P. W. I whether he brought the money of Rs. 300/- as demanded by him. P. W. 1 gave the tainted notes to the appellant. The appellant kept those notes in his shirt pocket. He immediately came out of the office and gave signal to the D. S. P. The d. S. P. and others rushed to the M. R. O s room. At that time he accompanied them and P. W. 1 was asked to wait outside. The d. S. P. after ascertaining the identity of the appellant called for glass of water, mixed S. C. powder in it and asked the appellant to dip fingers in the said glass of water and immediately on putting the fingers of the appellant the water turned to pink colour and those solutions were preserved. When the D. S. P. asked the appellant about the tainted amount the appellant gave the said amount to the D. S. P. by taking it from the shirt pocket. They verified the numbers of M. O. 1 tainted notes with the numbers noted in Ex. P. 6-pre-trap report and the numbers tallied. The D. S. P. seized M. O. 1 tainted notes under Ex. They verified the numbers of M. O. 1 tainted notes with the numbers noted in Ex. P. 6-pre-trap report and the numbers tallied. The D. S. P. seized M. O. 1 tainted notes under Ex. P. 7- panchanama which was attested by him and another mediator. The shirt pocket of the appellant also turned pink when it was drenched into the solution. Later the D. S. P. incorporated the statement of P. W. 1 in ex. P. 7-panchanama. The assistants of the D. S. P. also prepared Ex. P. 10-rough sketch of the premises of M. R. O s Office. In the cross-examination this witness reiterated what he had stated in the chief-examination and there are no contradictions on the material aspects of his evidence. ( 10 ) P. W. 3, the then M. R. O. , Yacharam mandal deposed that on 7-8-1990 he was in his office along with his staff and others. At about 1-30 p. m. P. W. I came to the office and on seeing P. W. 1 the appellant went out of his room. Within 5 or 6 minutes the appellant returned to the office room and started assisting him. Within 5 or 10 minutes thereafter, the D. S. P. , A. C. B. and others entered into the office room. The D. S. P. asked the appellant as to whether he obtained any amount from P. W. 1. The appellant replied that he received Rs. 300/- from P. W. 1. The ACB officials recorded his statement on a subsequent date. ( 11 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 is also lending support to the prosecution version that the appellant received the amount of rs. 300/- from P. W. 1. ( 12 ) P. W. 4, the son of a deceased patwari of Yacharam Village deposed that on the date of laying the trap he was in the office till 1-30 p. m. , and the ACB officials came to the M. R. O. office and enquired about the appellant and on ascertaining the appellant stated to the ACB officials that p. W. 1 paid him Rs. 300/- and produced the said amount before the DSP. ( 13 ) THE evidence of this witness is also lending support to the prosecution version that the appellant received the amount from p. W. 1. 300/- and produced the said amount before the DSP. ( 13 ) THE evidence of this witness is also lending support to the prosecution version that the appellant received the amount from p. W. 1. ( 14 ) P. W. 5, the then Deputy superintendent of Police, A. C. B. , deposed about the receipt of the complaint from p. W. 1, his securing the mediators, laying the trap on the appellant, recovering the tainted notes, recording the happenings in the panchanamas etc. He also gave the details of the time of trap and their going to the M. R. O. Office, Yacharam in a van for the purpose of laying the trap etc. He denied a suggestion that all the documents relied on by the prosecution were handed over to him by P. W. 5 for the purpose of foisting the case. ( 15 ) P. W. 6, the then Inspector, Anti-Corruption bureau, Hyderabad Range stated that he filed the charge-sheet after conclusion of the investigation and after complying all the formalities as required under law. ( 16 ) THE above evidence placed by the prosecution amply established that the appellant demanded and received Rs. 300/- from P. W. I at about 1-30 p. m. on 7-8-1990 at the office of the M. R. O. , Yacharam. ( 17 ) THE appellant did not dispute the receipt of the amount of Rs. 300/- at the time and place as narrated by the prosecution. He took a defence that he received the said amount from P. W. 1 which was due to his wife towards discharge of a debt. In the light of the said plea taken by the appellant, it has to be considered whether the information elicited through the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of P. W. 1 relied on by him is probabilising the defence to enable the court to give a finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the amount received by the appellant was towards bribe for doing an official favour to P. W. 1 and it was only towards discharge of the debt due to the wife of the appellant. ( 18 ) IN Ex. P. 7-post-trap panchanama the version given by the appellant was extracted. It reads as follows: sri Raghotham Rao stated that he took rs. 300/- from Sri Narsimha Ready for processing their petition for mutation of lands. ( 18 ) IN Ex. P. 7-post-trap panchanama the version given by the appellant was extracted. It reads as follows: sri Raghotham Rao stated that he took rs. 300/- from Sri Narsimha Ready for processing their petition for mutation of lands. ( 19 ) AT the time of preparation of ex. P. 7 immediately after the trap, the appellant did not take any defence and specifically stated that he received the said amount for the purpose of mutation of the names of P. W. 1, his father and others in respect of certain lands. It was suggested to P. W. 1 that he called the appellant as "bava" and they also heard that he asked the appellant to give Rs. 300/- to his wife saying that the said amount was due to her. But, it was emphatically denied by P. W. 1. He also denied a suggestion that the appellant never asked him whether he brought the bribe amount of Rs. 300/ -. In the cross-examination of P. W. 2 it was simply suggested that P. W. 1 addressed the appellant as "brother-in-law" and that P. W. 1 gave M. O. 1-amount to the appellant requesting to pay the same to his wife. In the cross-examination of P. W. 3 it was suggested that P. W. 1 never approached the appellant with any application for mutation of lands till 7-8-1990 and no suggestion was given to this witness regarding the alleged discharge of the amount to the wife of the appellant. P. W. 4 who was in the M. R. O. office at the time of laying the trap stated in the cross-examination that p. W. 1 called the appellant as "bava", but no suggestion was given to this witness regarding the alleged discharge of the amount to the wife of the appellant. In the cross-examination of P. W. 5 it was suggested that P. W. 1 gave the amount of Rs. 300/- to the appellant for passing on to his wife to whom he owes money. Except a mere suggestion to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 that P. W. 1 paid the amount to the appellant towards discharge of the amount due to the wife of the appellant, no favourable information could be elicited from any of the witnesses in support of the defence version. Except a mere suggestion to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 that P. W. 1 paid the amount to the appellant towards discharge of the amount due to the wife of the appellant, no favourable information could be elicited from any of the witnesses in support of the defence version. The appellant in his endeavour to make out the defence examined D. W. 1. ( 20 ) D. W. 1 is a resident of Yacharam village which is adjacent to the village of p. W. 1. He stated that he was living as a tenant in a house adjacent to the M. R. O. Office, Yacharam. He saw P. W. 1 and the appellant moving number of times. P. W. 1 used to go to the house of the appellant and take meals. Whenever the appellant used to visit the village of P. W. 1 he used to take meals in the house of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 used to call the appellant as "brother-in-law". He saw P. W. 1 and the appellant in the M. R. O. Office in the month of july 1990. When he enquired P. W. 1 as to why he was moving with the appellant he replied that he requested the appellant to write his name in the possessor column of the pahani in respect of the land abutting his land and the appellant refused to do the same and P. W. I asked him to recommend to the appellant. The appellant refused to write P. W. 1 s name on the ground that it is a Government land. ( 21 ) THIS witness did not say anything about the alleged discharge of the debt due to the wife of the appellant and simply stated that the appellant and P. W. 1 were moving very close. This witness was not a guest either to the appellant or to P. W. 1 at any time in the dinner or lunch and he did not come out as to how and through whom he came to know about all those things. This witness is only an agriculturist. In the general circumstances he is not expected to monitor the movements of the M. R. O. and P. W. 1 who belongs to another village and keep a record of the exchange visits of P. W. 1 and the appellant. This witness is only an agriculturist. In the general circumstances he is not expected to monitor the movements of the M. R. O. and P. W. 1 who belongs to another village and keep a record of the exchange visits of P. W. 1 and the appellant. This witness also did not mention at what time he will be available at his house, from what time he attends the agricultural operations and at what time he had the occasion to see the appellant and P. W. 1 moving together. In the absence of such material it is hardly possible to believe the evidence of this witness regarding the intimacy of P. W. 1 with the appellant. ( 22 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, the learned Counsel for both parties drew the attention of this court to certain decisions regarding the standard of proof that is required to be placed by the appellant in support of his defence. ( 23 ) THE learned Senior Counsel Sri bali Reddy appearing on behalf of the appellant relied on the following judgments: ( 24 ) IN Trilok Chan v. State of Delhi, air 1977 SC 666 , the Supreme Court while considering the aspect regarding the burden of proof on the accused in corruption cases held:"8. . . . The degree and the character of the burden of proof which Section 4 (1) casts on an accused person to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof which under Section 101, Evidence act rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation given by the accused in his examination under section 342 Cr. P. C. may not be enough, the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged, if the effect of the material brought on the record, in its totality, renders the existence of the fact presumed, improbable. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption by showing a mere pre-ponderance of probability in his favour; it is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption by showing a mere pre-ponderance of probability in his favour; it is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. " ( 25 ) IN Panalal v. State of Maharashtra, air 1979 SC 1191 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the offence under section 5 (1) (d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 held that when there is no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for illegal gratification by the accused for not bringing the previous conviction of the complainant to the notice of Court, to save him from enhanced punishment, the evidence of the complainant cannot be accepted. ( 26 ) IN Razik Ram v. J. S. Chouhan, AIR 1975 SC 667 , the Supreme Court while dealing with an offence under Representation of the People Act, 1951 held that a charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge. The trial of an election petition being in the nature of an accusation, bearing the indelible stamp of quasi-criminal action, the standard of proof is the same as in a criminal trial. Just as in a criminal case, so in ah election petition, the respondent against whom the charge of corrupt practice is levelled is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. ( 27 ) THE above decision is with regard to the allegations regarding the use, hiring or procuring of vehicle by the contesting candidate while participating in an election and it has no bearing on the facts of the present case. ( 28 ) IN Man Singh v. Delhi Admn. , AIR 1979 SC 1455 , the Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 held that it is sufficient if the accused offers probable explanation or defence and he is not required to prove his defence by the strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if he offers an explanation or defence which is probable and once this is done, the presumption under Section 4 stands rebutted. ( 29 ) IN Punjabrao v. State of maharashtra, 2002 AIR SCW 16, the supreme Court held that it is well-settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether the explanation is said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. ( 30 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant by relying on the above judgments submitted that as the appellant offered his explanation that he received the amount from P. W. 1 towards the discharge of a debt due to his wife, it has to be accepted and the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt. ( 31 ) THE appellant took a specific defence that P. W. I gave the money to him towards discharge of debt due to his wife and he received the said amount in that connection. It is well settled that in a case where the accused offers explanation for the receipt of the amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether the explanation is probabilised by pointing out the circumstances from the evidence of the prosecution or the defence evidence, if any, adduced. It is also well settled that the accused is not required to prove his defence by the strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if he offers an explanation which is probable and once it is done, the presumption that he received the bribe stands rebutted. In the light of the above settled position of law, i wish to examine the circumstances pointed out by the appellant to probabilise the defence that he received the amount from p. W. 1 on behalf of his wife for discharge of the debt due to her. ( 32 ) EX. P. 7 is the panchanama prepared immediately after laying the trap. In the said panchanama it was mentioned that when the D. S. P. questioned the appellant whether he had just then demanded and accepted any bribe from P. W. 1, the appellant stated that he took Rs. 300/- from P. W. 1 for processing their petition for mutation of lands. ( 33 ) AT the time of preparing Ex. In the said panchanama it was mentioned that when the D. S. P. questioned the appellant whether he had just then demanded and accepted any bribe from P. W. 1, the appellant stated that he took Rs. 300/- from P. W. 1 for processing their petition for mutation of lands. ( 33 ) AT the time of preparing Ex. P. 7 the appellant did not offer any other explanation, more particularly about the amount due to his wife from P. W. 1. In ex. P. 7 it was further mentioned that when the appellant was asked about the application and copies of sale deeds submitted by P. W. 1 for the purpose of mutation the appellant stated that those papers were kept at his residence. He further stated that he did not show those papers to the M. R. O. for his endorsement as he was busy at zamabandi at Hyderabad. The suggestion given to P. W. I that he used to take handloans either from the appellant or his wife and that the amount of Rs. 300/- was given by P. W. I to him requesting to give the said amount to his wife towards payment of the amount due to her was denied by P. W. 1. No information regarding the defence version could be elicited from p. Ws. 2 to 4 who stated that the appellant received the money and it was recovered from him. A suggestion given to P. W. 5 that P. W. 1 gave the amount to the appellant for passing to his wife to whom he owes the money was denied by the witness. D. W. 1 who deposed about the acquaintance between P. W. 1 and the appellant did not say anything about the money transactions between P. W. 1 and the wife of the appellant. The appellant in his 313 Cr. P. C. examination simply repeated what was suggested to the witnesses that he received the amount from P. W. 1 towards the amount payable to his wife at the request of P. W. 1. The appellant in his 313 Cr. P. C. examination simply repeated what was suggested to the witnesses that he received the amount from P. W. 1 towards the amount payable to his wife at the request of P. W. 1. He did not give any further details whether his wife was doing any money lending business, what was the amount taken by p. W. 1 from her, when the amount was taken, whether it was an oral debt or anything in writing, whether the amount was paid to P. W. 1 at his house or whether he paid the money and gave it to P. W. 1 in the office etc. He also did not state in his 313 Cr. P. C. examination about his personal acquaintance with P. W. 1, their exchange of visits for dinners in their houses by reciprocation and how the acquaintance developed between him and p. W. 1, who is an agriculturist and since how long he was having acquaintance and friendship with P. W. 1. He did not choose to examine his wife in support of his defence that the wife lent money to p. W. 1. He could not elicit any favourable information from any of the prosecution witnesses about the alleged debt. ( 34 ) THE appellant tried to project that p. W. 1 was calling him as bava (brother-in-law) and P. W. 1 was so intimate to him, having sufficient acquaintance with the members of his family also. In this regard the appellant elicited some information from the prosecution witnesses and tried to justify the same through the evidence of d. W. 1. When a suggestion was given to p. W. 1 that he called the appellant as "bava", he specifically denied the same. P. W. 2 also denied a suggestion that the appellant called P. W. 1 as brother-in-law or that another villager objected P. W. 1 calling the appellant as brother-in-law in the office or that P. W. 1 informing the other villager that he would always call the appellant as brother-in-law. P. W. 3 stated that he did not hear any conversation between the appellant and P. W. 1. P. W. 4 in the cross-examination stated that while he was talking with the appellant P. W. 1 came there and called the appellant as "bava" and the appellant got up and went outside. P. W. 3 stated that he did not hear any conversation between the appellant and P. W. 1. P. W. 4 in the cross-examination stated that while he was talking with the appellant P. W. 1 came there and called the appellant as "bava" and the appellant got up and went outside. He cannot say what happened outside the door. The appellant asked P. W. 1 to go to home. P. W. 1 did not say anything. Within one minute the appellant came into the office room. Within another five minutes a person came into the office and enquired who is the appellant and questioned the appellant as to what happened to the amount given by P. W. 1. The appellant took out money from his pocket and gave it to the said person. Later a panchanama was conducted and he also signed on it. ( 35 ) EXCEPT the evidence of P. W. 4 that P. W. 1 called the appellant as "bava", no other witness supported the defence version that P. W. 1 was calling the appellant as "bava". Though P. W. 4 stated that P. W. 1 was calling the appellant as "bava" he supported the prosecution version regarding the ACB officials recovering the amount from the appellant and the appellant stating that he received the said amount from p. W. 1. It is not clarified by the defence through suggestions as to what kind of relationship P. W. 1 was having with the appellant, whether they belonged to same caste and whether P. W. 1 was calling the appellant as "bava" by courtesy. The appellant did not enter the witness box to speak about his prior acquaintance with p. W. 1, who is an agriculturist, and exchange of visits between their houses etc. He examined D. W. I, an agriculturist of yacharam Village where the M. R. O. office is located. ( 36 ) D. W. 1 is a resident of gaddimallaiahgudem and not a resident of yacharam. D. W. 1 stated that he is living as a tenant in the adjacent house of M. R. O. office. He saw P. W. 1 and the appellant moving number of times. P. W. 1 used to go to the house of the appellant and used to have meals. D. W. 1 stated that he is living as a tenant in the adjacent house of M. R. O. office. He saw P. W. 1 and the appellant moving number of times. P. W. 1 used to go to the house of the appellant and used to have meals. Whenever the appellant used to visit the village of P. W. 1, he used to have meals in the house of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 used to call the appellant as brother-in-law. He saw P. W. 1 and the appellant at M. R. O s office in the month of July 1992. He enquired with P. W. 1 as to why he was moving with the appellant. P. W. 1 informed him that he requested the appellant to write his name in the possessor s column of the pahani in the land abutting his land and the appellant refused to do the same and P. W. 1 asked him to recommend to the appellant to enter his name in the revenue records. The appellant refused to write the name of P. W. 1 since the land belongs to Government. ( 37 ) HAD there been close acquaintance to P. W. 1 with the appellant, he would have got his work easily done. There would not have been any necessity for p. W. 1 to move round the office of M. R. O. to get the mutation done in the records. Had there been any close acquaintance, exchange of visits by dining in the respective houses, there was no necessity for P. W. 1 to give a complaint to the ACB officials attributing that the appellant was demanding money for mutating their names in the records. D. W. 1 though stated about P. W. 1 and the appellant moving together, exchange of their visits to the respective houses and dining during those visits, he did not mention on how many times he happened to see them moving together, what was the approximate time which he happened to see them, whether he being an agriculturist has no work to attend and what was the peculiarity in their movements to draw his attention since many officers, employees, agriculturists and several other people come to the M. R. O. office and meet the officials. In the absence of those details, the evidence of D. W. 1 deserves no credence. In the absence of those details, the evidence of D. W. 1 deserves no credence. The appellant did not place any other material to convince the Court that he was closely associated with P. W. 1 and what was the cause for P. W. 1 to prefer a false complaint against him. ( 38 ) THE appellant also did not examine his wife to speak about the alleged debt due from P. W. 1 or the appellant could have given those details relating to the alleged debt to his wife by giving the particulars of the quantum of amount borrowed by P. W. 1, the approximate period during which he took the loan etc. D. W. 1 did not speak about the transaction or the alleged debt due to the wife of the appellant. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his contention that he received the amount towards discharge of the loan due to his wife. The appellant gave only suggestions to the witnesses, but none of the witnesses supported his contention that the amount received by him was towards discharge of the debt due to his wife. The information elicited from the prosecution witnesses is not at all helpful to the defence and it is not probabilising the defence version. In the absence of the material to probabilise the defence version, the case of the prosecution has to be accepted. The Court below accordingly accepted the version of the prosecution and found the appellant guilty of the charges. After carefully going through the evidence placed by the prosecution and the judgment of the Court below, I am convinced that there is nothing wrong in finding the appellant guilty of the charges leveled against him. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. ( 39 ) REGARDING the conviction of the appellant for the offences covered by the charges, the learned Counsel for the appellant requested to take a lenient view in the matter. ( 40 ) SINCE the lower Court imposed the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, there is no scope to reduce the same. ( 41 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the lower court in CC No. 23 of 1992 in all respects.